TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplier acknowledging that it had incorrectly classified the goods under HSN 6404 instead of HSN 6406. The fact that the GST had been charged by the said supplier at the correct rate is a material factor to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority. Whilst the concerned authorities have accepted the classification of the product supplied by a singular supplier, M/s V. K. Polymers, under six invoices, as correct; they have not accepted the classification of goods as far as the other suppliers are concerned. This is notwithstanding that there is no dispute that all suppliers have correctly charged the GST. Whether the petitioner would be entitled to the refund notwithstanding that the ITC availed for the month of October, 2020 and November, 2020 was in excess of the limit as specified in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules? - HELD THAT:- It is material to note that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute that if the petitioner is correct that the mismatch is only on account of the suppliers filing the quarterly returns, the petitioner would be entitled to the refund. He, however, states that the petitioner did not submit the relevant documents to establish this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. The petitioner was called upon to furnish an explanation regarding the same. The second issue related to two invoices appearing at serial no. 55 and 56 of Annexure B involving the ITC of an amount of ₹16,272.18/- which did not appear in GSTR-2A uploaded by the petitioner. 5. The third issue related to ineligible ITC under Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Rules ). According to the Proper Officer, the claim for the ITC could not exceed more than 20% of the eligible credit in respect of the invoices and debit notes which have not been uploaded by the supplier. It was alleged that the petitioner had violated the said condition as laid down in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules in respect of her claims for the month of October, 2020 and November, 2020 as she had availed excessive ITC amounting to ₹1,03,210.09/. 6. The fourth issue related to the returns filed by one of the suppliers in respect of the goods supplied to the petitioner. The said supplier had classified the goods supplied as HSN 6404, which was the code for the finished products (complete shoes). The supplier had charged GST at the rate of 18% and therefore, the conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnificantly higher in the month of September, 2020. Similarly, in the month of October, 2020 and November, 2020, the ITC reflected in GSTR-2A was significantly less than the ITC as claimed by the petitioner, but in the month of December, 2020, it was significantly higher. According to the petitioner, this anomaly was on account of the mismatch in the tax periods for which the petitioner and the input suppliers filed their respective returns. A tabular statement setting out the difference between the ITC as reflected in GSTR-2A and in GSTR3B for the refund claim period from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020 is set out below:- SIMRAN CHANDWANI BHAGWATI PLASTIC 07AZGPC3374C1ZR Refund Claim Period from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020 ITC Claim in GSTR-3B INPUT IN GSTR-2A DIFFERENCE 3B VC 2A S. No . Month CGST SGST CGST SGST CGST SGST 1 Jul-20 91,395.00 91,395.00 80,086.22 80,086.22 11,308.78 11,308.78 2 Aug-20 76,655.00 76,655.00 60,706.40 60,706.40 15,948.60 15,948.60 3 Sep-20 78,299.00 78,299.00 1,03,094.72 1,03,094.72 (24,795.72) (24,795.72) 4 Oct-20 83,107.00 83,107.00 50,588.25 50,588.25 32,518.75 32,518.75 5 Nov-20 56,607.00 56,607.00 29,510.80 29,510.80 27,096.20 27,096.20 6 Dec-20 52,021.00 52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Appellate Authority concurred with the Adjudicating Authority that the ITC amounting to ₹1,03,210.09/- for the month of October, 2020 and November, 2020 was claimed in contravention of Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules. It is also noticed that the petitioner had admitted that she had claimed excess ITC in those months and had deposited the interest. The Appellate Authority reasoned that in view of the above, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the ITC as claimed. 15. The petitioner s contention that the six invoices issued by one of the suppliers which incorrectly classified the goods as supplied was also rejected. The petitioner had also raised a grievance before the Appellate Authority that the tax involved in the six invoices in question amounted to ₹47,698/- but the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the entire claim. However, this contention was not accepted as the Appellate Authority held that the petitioner had not provided segregated details and the eligible Net ITC . The Appellate Authority was not persuaded by the petitioner s contention that it was not engaged in the purchase of the finished goods but was a manufacturer of footwear. The Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be denied the benefit of the accumulated ITC. 18. We are also unable to accept the reasoning of the Appellate Authority to deny the entire claim on the basis of the six invoices issued by one supplier. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner s claim was denied solely for want of relevant documents. However, there is no dispute that the other suppliers had correctly classified the products supplied by them. We are unable to appreciate this approach. Whilst the concerned authorities have accepted the classification of the product supplied by a singular supplier, M/s V. K. Polymers, under six invoices, as correct; they have not accepted the classification of goods as far as the other suppliers are concerned. This is notwithstanding that there is no dispute that all suppliers have correctly charged the GST 19. The reasoning that the petitioner has produced a declaration with the mala fide objective of claiming refund also does not commend to us. 20. The next question to be addressed is whether the petitioner would be entitled to the refund notwithstanding that the ITC availed for the month of October, 2020 and November, 2020 was in excess of the limit as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
